Thread merging:
I think that these two threads should not have been merged
- one is a "happy about gear" thread ("can't wait to make music with the D550") that goes into a lot of directions - and the second one was a specific question about differences in sound.

Just because they are about the same synth they do not necessarily cover the same topic - and in fact i think that mergers like this make specific searches more complicated.

Next time someone searches for "difference between D-50 and later JV's" the second thread (which provides the answers to that readily) with the concise thread topic will be lost and the thread "i love my new gear" with X number of posts about gear happiness will show up.

The D50 is a pad machine, so is the JD800, they dont sound the same but in the real world they are not a million miles apart. (yer they can do other stuff too of course but...)
A Microwave or Wave is not a PPG either.. but its close enough for me.

Quote:

Originally Posted by projectwoofer

Sorry but you seem to have no clue what their differences in sound are...tutt

Let's be honest. JD-800 vs D-50 is more like apples and oranges. One is a classic rompler the other is VA synth (with basic sample playback).

Converters and audio processing on D-50 give a distinctive glassy character to it's samples. No other synth sounds like D-50. But then, not all people hear things the same. So it's hard to explain it to everyone, but the majority however find D-50 to have a glassy edge over its samples. This is what gives it a signature sound.

Comparing JD-800 with D-50 is somehow not a good idea, given one single patch on D-50 that can contain 4 pulse oscillators each with its own PWM. This eats the whole JD inside out, no matter which samples one uses on the JD. Further, to make things sound even thicker, each PWM-ed oscillator on D-50 can be run by its own LFO. This is really not a problem to program, because D-50 has 6 LFOs per patch.

And we didn't even touched the subject of D-50's effects processors....

Let's be honest. JD-800 vs D-50 is more like apples and oranges. One is a classic rompler the other is VA synth (with basic sample playback).

Converters and audio processing on D-50 give a distinctive glassy character to it's samples. No other synth sounds like D-50. But then, not all people hear things the same. So it's hard to explain it to everyone, but the majority however find D-50 to have a glassy edge over its samples. This is what gives it a signature sound.

Comparing JD-800 with D-50 is somehow not a good idea, given one single patch on D-50 that can contain 4 pulse oscillators each with its own PWM. This eats the whole JD inside out, no matter which samples one uses on the JD. Further, to make things sound even thicker, each PWM-ed oscillator on D-50 can be run by its own LFO. This is really not a problem to program, because D-50 has 6 LFOs per patch.

And we didn't even touched the subject of D-50's effects processors....

High resolution DCOs
By the 1990s, DCOs were using higher frequency oscillators and similar division techniques to those of the mid-1970s, but with much finer resolution: sufficient to provide frequency steps so small that they were almost inaudible.

They also usually multiplexed the rate adapter and division circuitry so that each voice can have an effectively independent DCO. The multiplexing usually happened at a very high rate, often higher than the CD sample rate of 44.1 kHz: 48 or 62.5 kHz are frequently used for this 'sample rate' clock. These enhancements removed all the problems described above for the 'master oscillator plus divider' type of DCO, and gave a tone generation source which has almost ideal performance - limited only by the master clock rate and the precision of the dividers and rate adapters.

High resolution DCOs
By the 1990s, DCOs were using higher frequency oscillators and similar division techniques to those of the mid-1970s, but with much finer resolution: sufficient to provide frequency steps so small that they were almost inaudible.

They also usually multiplexed the rate adapter and division circuitry so that each voice can have an effectively independent DCO. The multiplexing usually happened at a very high rate, often higher than the CD sample rate of 44.1 kHz: 48 or 62.5 kHz are frequently used for this 'sample rate' clock. These enhancements removed all the problems described above for the 'master oscillator plus divider' type of DCO, and gave a tone generation source which has almost ideal performance - limited only by the master clock rate and the precision of the dividers and rate adapters.

yamaha cs serie polyphonics have individual (and all analog) voice boards !
you're either teasing me, or confusing the design described in the quote with full polyphonic octave-divider based synths such as string machines, or korg ps/pe etc...Some of those do have some weird intonation scaling, but it has nothing to do with heavy multiplexing side-effects and digital clock bleed-through in early digital/hybrid synths

CS80 uses a divide down. I've had that from a couple of sources now. how many boards they use and how they might use it was
a different thing.

Not true, they're real VCOs, I just checked the schematic. Divide down doesn't permit independent pitch modulation per voice, so is not preferred in "real synthesizers". It DOES use digital keyboard scanning, voice assignment and pitch CV generation (edit: but so does every other polysynth I can think of).

Quote:

one guy on GS explained it even more in depth. it's based on technology that seems to have been used in a lot of electronic organs. Yamaha were big into that.

Can you cite this?

Oh, also the D50 using a high clock frequency doesn't necessarily indicate anything about sound quality. The original DX7 has about the same clock frequency (4.8 MHz) as early Casio models, but the DX7's sample rate is 50 kHz and the Casios are 600 kHz.

Not true, they're real VCOs, I just checked the schematic. Divide down doesn't permit independent pitch modulation per voice, so is not preferred in "real synthesizers". It DOES use digital keyboard scanning, voice assignment and pitch CV generation (edit: but so does every other polysynth I can think of).

Can you cite this?

Oh, also the D50 using a high clock frequency doesn't necessarily indicate anything about sound quality. The original DX7 has about the same clock frequency (4.8 MHz) as early Casio models, but the DX7's sample rate is 50 kHz and the Casios are 600 kHz.

yes the CS80 VCO does look like an exponential VCO which isn't divide down.

The D50 DCO being divide down wasn't why I was suggesting the unit might be a quality sound. it was just something I found out. The D50 do have interesting key range modes though. those are across the board for most sections in the D50. the filter freq, pulse width Amp, pitch and so on. two in particular are very subtle. S1 & S2. I'm not sure on what basis they made these so subtle but I guess these key ranges might be derived from the DCO speed (or) at least maybe control the DCO frequency in some respects in regard to pitch.

I'm pretty sure they designed this D50 as a Digital Analog originally. then they decided to add some sample partials afterwards.. the Analog section sounds brilliant imho and the Filters are superb.

i'm pretty sure they didn't, but it might have been nicer if they did, the whole new suprise of LA synthesis was pasting the digital transients on the attack of more "analogy" waveforms since memory was at a cost premium then, and could not afford to have sustained portions of most sounds, .... and then lather them with a somewhat noisy but albeit useful reverb. but unfortunately, this and the dx7 were the creations that made most perceive the old moogs etc of the past to be obsolete at the time..... and how did that work out for them? the d50 can make some interesting sounds, and the above examples are pretty good, but for the most part, it kind of made everything back then a breathy chiffer, digital nativedance, fantasia disaster.

i'm pretty sure they didn't, but it might have been nicer if they did, the whole new suprise of LA synthesis was pasting the digital transients on the attack of more "analogy" waveforms since memory was at a cost premium then, and could not afford to have sustained portions of most sounds, .... and then lather them with a somewhat noisy but albeit useful reverb. but unfortunately, this and the dx7 were the creations that made most perceive the old moogs etc of the past to be obsolete at the time..... and how did that work out for them? the d50 can make some interesting sounds, and the above examples are pretty good, but for the most part, it kind of made everything back then a breathy chiffer, digital nativedance, fantasia disaster.

The samples don't go through filters in the D50 so there is a great deal less you can do with the samples. only a few of them loop and you can't have the loop switch on or off. they also chose to leave out some of the most important looping samples in favor of longer less usable samples. namely the looping waveforms which they included on the V-Synth versions.

The Digital/Analog section of the synth is a great success imo. The sampling implementation seems a little rushed in comparison.
they did get them to scale all the way up and down the key range pretty well though. maybe that and some special encoding is what
made it impossible to get enough loop lengths into other samples.. but they could have dropped a lot of the more unusable loops.
I'm sure they could have got the samples really well worked out if they had had enough time.

whether or not you like the presets doesn't detract from what the synth can actually do.
hard synth to program if you don't have some extra aids to do it with.